The Supreme Court Standing Effects Part 2

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS Often led by Justice Antonin Scalia the Supreme Court has limited access to the Courts on a wide range of issues. Restrictive “standing” has tended to harm liberal public-interests and lenient “standing” to help them.

The three essential requirements for standing are; an actual injury, proof that the injury was due to something the defendant did or failed to do, and proof that the injury would be redressed if the defendant did as the plaintiff
asked.

Of interest, large majorities of Justices have denied or limited access to businesses in cases where they fear the free interplay of the market could be effected.

During the last term the Court voted to protect some business practices from anti-trust suits, require greater evidence of collusion to allow cases to proceed, immunize Wall Street banks and brokers from anti-trust suits relating to activities regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission,, require plaintiffs to state allegations in greater detail. These decisions all set out rules that will bar some future claims from being heard.

The conservative Court is more friendly to business and gov’t and less friendly to individual rights than the liberal courts.

Two cases of interest. The Court ruled that the Freedom from Religion Foundation had no standing to sue over the executive promotion of faith based initiatives because the money came from executive discretionary funds not a congressional appropriation. Citizens can not file suits alleging that the government is spending money illegally, except for suits based on the Constitution’s Establishment clause, first amendment, the basis for separation of church and state.

Chief Justice Roberts has been very much against law suits contesting environmental rulings. Environment is one area, voter ID is another where conservatives rejected the idea of assessing statues as soon as they are passed. The conservatives want to have a clear idea of the nature and effect in the real world. In the voter ID case the lawyer for the people bringing suit pointed out that waiting may influence the outcome of an election. The voter ID requirement was upheld even though there was no evidence of voter fraud.